September 1, 2011

This is the anecdote that begins Barry Schwartz's book "The Paradox of Choice." He "spluttered" that after a Gap salesgirl asked him if he wanted "slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit, baggy, or extra baggy... stonewashed, acid-washed, or distressed... button-fly or zipper-fly?" His anguish was supposed to exemplify a big problem we have these days.

By creating all these options, the store undoubtedly had done a favor for customers with varied tastes and body types. However, by vastly expanding the range of choices, they had also created a new problem that needed to be solved. Before these options were available, a buyer like myself had to settle for an imperfect fit, but at least purchasing jeans was a five-minute affair. Now it was a complex decision in which I was forced to invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, anxiety, and dread.

Buying jeans is a trivial matter, but it suggests a much larger theme we will pursue throughout this book, which is this: When people have no choice, life is almost unbearable. As the number of available choices increases, as it has in our consumer culture, the autonomy, control, and liberation this variety brings are powerful and But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize.

Get a grip, Barry! I feel like Barry I-just-want-normal-jeans Schwartz was the guy who inspired one of my favorite songs:

When I think of Obama and sports I always am reminded of this video that Althouse showed quite a while back. I watch it ever now and then, and I don't know why.

Why you watch it... or why Obama and sports reminds you of it? You watch it because it's so infectious. And comforting. And infectiously comforting, like friendly jeans. It reminds you of Obama and sports, I think, because you've had this picture in your head for so long: "Obama Celebrates Win By Riding Bike." He was a winner, about to coast downhill, and the regrettable jeans were the first foreshadowing of a failed presidency. He was not, as we'd thought, the hero. He was the man in Randy Normal Jeans. And then there are the dance moves:

The pure free market Austrian economists like Mises talk about "consumer sovereignty". That is, consumers get to vote every day with their dollars which products, businesses and industries survive which fail.

If more consumers were like Barry and unable to cope with too many choices, there would be fewer choices. But there is enough demand for each of the various choices that poor Barry has the good fortune to choose from, that manufacturers keeping manufacturing them, the distributors keep warehousing them, and the retailers keep stocking them.

It's entirely up to the consumer to decide which products survive in the market and which ones don't. Barry gets his vote, but so do the other 310 million of us.

At least this was how the world operated before the government started picking winners and losers.

Actually, the first thing that came to my mind was Apple's bewildering array of model names and numbers during the 90's (Performa 467, Centris 660AV, Quadras, etc.). Over time, they have managed to slice down to a fairly basic product line that is pretty easily understood - Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, with a relatively small number of variants of each (mostly based on screen size or CPU speed). And the number of iPod/iPhone models has stayed relatively small as well. Maybe this doesn't help in every market, but I think it has served Apple well.

Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama has won our admiration before, thanks to ... his eagerness to address climate change, as exemplified by the fact that he would want Al Gore to help him on climate issues.

Curious, The first two questions regarding clothing from my perspective:

1] Are they comfortable?

2] Are they durable

I do realize I'm in the minority. I wear clothes for the most part because it's the law. In ndspinelliland life would be like a constant Halloween party, w/ people dressing however they wanted including au natural.

But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize.

Sorry. Don't buy it. I don't have much problem deciding on jeans or any other product available in a variety of styles, types, etc. Neither do my kids.

I've been checking out printers. Talk about a broad range of choices. Brands everywhere and each with a multitude of models. But, I've narrowed it down pretty quick to a couple of models. Now, it just depends on price, availability and ink cartridge price.

Seriously, though. IMHO, the "paradox of choice" is only a problem for the insecure. The tip-off is Schwartz's statement "I was forced to invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, anxiety, and dread.

And from the movie, "You've Got Mail", the Tom Hanks character says that because ordinary people have to make so many decisions just to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks, it instills a sense of fulfillment and self confidence in their ordinary existence:

I like the choices in jeans because I have a better shot at finding a pair that fit. But shampoo? Gosh. They have shampoo for dry hair, normal hair, fine hair, curly hair, color-treated hair, hair that you want to curl, hair that you want to straighten, hair that you want to look bigger, hair that you want to be sleeker, hair that you want to be shinier, hair that you want to be curly until after work when it should go straight... Yikes. It's just shampoo, for crying out loud. I have a sneaking suspicion that the shampoo is the same in all the bottles. At least with the jeans, I can see and feel the differences.

And I'll just add that M&Ms (plain, peanut, coconut, almond, dark chocolate, etc.) made a fine business decision when it added pretzel M&Ms to its lineup.

I've had the same 3 pairs of jeans on rotation for almost three years because I can't find jeans in the same style. The entire industry has moved to that skin-tight bullshit that our forefathers most feared. In fact, Levi's--the clothing standard of hypermasculine cowboys and lumberjacks--has a style out called "Ex-girlfiend." The idea being that your ex-girlfriend left her jeans in your hamper (did she walk home without pants? Or bring a spare pair?), so now you're going to wear them...instead of doing the right thing and returning them and saying, "I found your jeans while I was sorting laundry and listening to Dashboard Confessional. And I miss you baby," and scoring an afternoon of decent, if awkward, Sex for Old Time's Sake. Then she realizes her jeans are stretched, and that night, on facebook, you read on her wall: "I think my ex-boyfriend has been wearing the jeans I left at his house like four months ago," followed my 6 lol's and 21 likes.

I can't believe that you guys have managed to get me to offer a mild defense of Schwartz, but that's part of the fun of hanging around this blog. So here goes...

This "too many jeans" nonsense isn't the basis for his argument, but just what's supposed to be a persuasive example from everyday life. He does cite some research that claims to find that people can be overwhelmed when having to choose from among "too many" options at one time. There may even be a plausible physiological basis for this.

Schwartz's mistake is his presumption that every time we make a purchase we reconsider all the options we rejected previously.

Even though it may well be tedious to evaluate all the different styles of Goldfish, that's only a one-time inconvenience. Once we know which option we like best, we can simply be creatures of habit.

And then buy three more pairs identical pairs because in four years, when you go to replace the now worn jeans, they won't be making the kind you like any more.

Ain't that the truth?! I buy jeans, undies & tees by the stack.

I'd have to add cosmetics, especially lip & nail colors to the list. The cosmetic companies suddenly change or discontinue products and/or colors. Unfortunately cosmetics don't have a long shelf life, so stocking up isn't an option and we have to sort through the new offerings to find an approximation. It's vexing.

Remember when Dorothy's ex-sister-in-law came to visit from Czechoslovakia right after the revolution and was complaining about all the books? "So many books, so many contradicting opinions. What will happen now? The people of my country will read all these books and be confused. No, the way it was worked. When there is one road no-one gets lost." I'm reminded of this because the whole tone of the jeans-guy's piece stinks of late-80's/early-90's situational humor. "And what's the deal with all these jeans?" etc.

I hate the trend, which really accelerated in the 1990s, of beautiful, simple utilitarian objects being supplanted by "designed" objects. Everything started to get unnecessary curves, frills, patterns. Objects that should be simple, honest and invisible in their straightforwardness suddenly start shouting for unwarranted attention. I like choice... unfortunately it's often the choice between hideous and more hideous.

It's still a free country. If Barry Schwartz thinks people actually WANT fewer choices, then he can start the "No Options!" store, and stock one style of everything. And you can get it all in any color you want... as long as it's black. Taking this kind of research and using it as the basis for government policy decisions is VERY dangerous.

There's some interesting research that Schwartz and others have done in this realm, but I'm not sure he's carefully analyzed yet the difference between stated preferences and actual preferences. People might SAY they don't like the choices, and they may even experience the negative feelings he described, but given the choice between choices and no choices, I think it's clear that most people opt for more choices.

People feel overwhelmed by choices when they don't know, and don't care much, about the relative merits of the available options. The average middle-aged guy just wants a damn pair of jeans. But the 20-something post-college young professional woman knows exactly what the difference is between all of those styles, where each can be worn appropriately, which style is suitable for which body type, which colors are best for which skin tones, etc. On the other hand, the young woman (and excuse me for using a very stereotypical example) only wants a "cute car," while the middle-aged guy may know precisely what engine he wants, what options, which brand is most reliable, etc.

The wine connoisseur who likes impressing his dinner guests LOVES how many choices he has available to him. The average couple who's throwing together a last-minute dinner party, on the other hand, may be paralyzed by the number of options of wine available.

One of the things we've lost, and not yet replaced entirely by computer, is the expert sales help which used to help the average person navigate these choices.

The other problem with a vast array of choices is that it usually means that significantly less consideration went into the design and production of the product. Nowhere is this more evident than the current world of perfumery, where there are now hundreds of new fragrances (or more likely, "variations" on existing fragrances) introduced each year, most of them meretricious trash thrown together in a cynical attempt to cash in on whatever derivative swill is currently selling well. The insidious trend of "flankers", which are the "variations" on existing, successful scents, is destroying creativity in the industry. Take Guerlain, for example, which has turned into a house of vulgarity since their purchase by LVMH, busily destroying their 150 year reputation.

Fortunately, Costco doesn't pose that problem. One style as far as I can tell. Which isn't far. 60 styles are for women.

Decision theory does show that multiple choices of nearly identical items tends to lead to choosing none. This was confirmed in a New England Journal of Medicine study a few years ago with patients who have osteoarthritis of the knees. The usual treatment is an anti-inflammatory called an NSAID (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug). Aspirin is an example. When patients were offered three choices of drug, they were less likely to fill the prescription than if only one or two was offered.

Another note: people here are making a mistake thinking that the options are all or nothing. There's a third option between no choice and a plethora of indistinguishable choices: fewer but more relevant choices.

The trouble with the multitude of choices is that it removes the default option. Try buying paint sometime and asking for "white" paint. It isn't that you have the default option plus lots more; it's that your extra options got rid of the simple one. Bit of a headache, really.

Send him to Venezuela. People get in line for 5 hours to buy cooking oli. Most of them will smuggle it to Colombia where is sold 5 times the price here.We only like that brand . But most places only have another one, made by the goverment , nobody wants it.We have no choices , everybody is very happy.It is the same with powder milk , coffe, meat, poultry, margarine.We have price control, scarcity and no choice. Sure people is enough stupid to vote for Chavez because as soon as the middle class and the rich are scrw... they dont care if they are too.So they are happy. So people with no choice must be happy.Said that no choice is happines?.My cousin is alegig to butter so he never ate cake while young. I guees it the USA is different , im sure there is a cake without butter in your marketplace. here there were not

"You watch it because it's so infectious. And comforting. And infectiously comforting, like friendly jeans."

Yes, it is, and I'm far too embarrassed to even estimate how many times I've watched it.

But I kid the President. He looks better in his mom jeans that I do in my 501s, which are the only jeans, and nearly the only pants I ever wear. The exceptions being camo pants (which are the coolest) or shorts when Althouse brings up her objections to them, which then forces me to expose my disgusting white legs for the cause of freedom.

I also stick pretty much to vanilla ice cream - it's just the best.

I like to try new things, but when it's important, stick with what you know - also known as conservatism.

If Liberals love change, why don't they...ever?

What, no "bagoh20" tag? That's a poor choice, and you only had 2 options: yes or no.

That's a problem for you isn't it, Althouse - only having two to pick from. You are much better with more choices. We all are.

A reasonable amount of choice is good, and I would NEVER suggest government should reduce available choices. But at some point, too many choices becomes a poor marketing strategy.

On a prosaic level, I recall a lunch place I used to patronize at which ordering a turkey sandwich required making at least a dozen choices. I often felt like blurting, "Just give me a damned sandwich." That lunch place is long gone. Perhaps excessive choices are part of the reason.

Choosing jeans can still take five minutes if you *choose* to only take five minutes. There's no obligation to spend more time if you don't like. That's where the problem is: not with choice, but the inability of some people to prioritize their time. I think this is often a problem for elites, and they assume that most Americans have the same problems, and wouldn't it be great if we could somehow alleviate this problem of excessive choices?

This is what the market gives us, because this is what we want. When we want something different, it will accommodate us.

The problem with suggesting "fewer, more relevant" choices is who gets to choose what is relevant? Again, we assume that our own choices would be in the "relevant" category, but there's no guarantee of that.

The solution to the choice-addled consumer is: don't overthink it. The truth is, I doubt there are many people out there who worry about this sort of shit.

Ellen always looks really good. I wish she would take me shopping. "Excuse me, miss. Where's your men/lesbian section?" If I wore what she wore, I'd turn heads. In a good way. Not a oops-forgot-to-wear-jeans-with-my-crotchless-chaps way. That's a faux pas you only make once.

Still wondering what's up with some of these responses. Never saw the guy in the excerpt or Amazon summary ever say that the way to deal with this complexity was to reduce choice, let alone through gov't intervention, so I don't get the high horse attitude I've seen in a couple places here.

Second thing: do people think this issue isn't real? Sure, purchasing jeans is a trivial example, but apparently the guy goes into lots of more serious examples. I still remember my high school years when the college ads came pouring in (garbage bags, full, literally.) It was tough to work through--"Let's Make a Deal" with two hundred doors. (And yes, I mean two hundred--grades and test scores I had, I could have gone free to lots of different places.)

Granted, it's a good problem to have, but it's still a problem. One of the biggest things I learned in my 20s was that coping with success required certain skill just as much as coping with failure did. My folks taught me well how to deal with adversity, but turns out, sometimes you've got to learn to deal with prosperity too because it's just as big a trap. Seems like this work might be useful in that vein.

If people felt overwhelmed by choices in the marketplace, marriages would last longer.

But when the choices came down to "marriage or the meat market" ... meet market even showed up on the Internet!

Choices don't overwhelm people. Being short of money, however, crimps things down to what you can afford.

Back in the 1960's, Faded Glory came out with pairs of jeans that sold for $40 a pair! My mother decided it was time to retire. She said her jeans cost $14.40 a dozen. There was no way she'd invest in buying them wholesale at $20 per pair.

@Erik .. good points. I'd say the root cause of the choice paradox is locating the definition of a 'good choice' outside your own experience and needs. (Do these jeans make me look fat?) What else would Schwartz be dreading? He's already admitted that he had to settle for an imperfect pair of jeans when the choices were minimal. Buyer's remorse over the selection might cause some anxiety but that can be corrected on the next purchase, and he still has a pair of jeans no worse than before. He's unconsiously revealing that what he's really anxious about is someone else judging that he made a bad choice. This is the standard that he applies when he looks at the choices other people make. He is not concerned with determining if their choices are optimized for their situation but whether they appear to be the correct choice according to an external standard - his.

There are four kinds of men in this world: traditional Levi's, Lee, Wrangler; and soft-handed men who wear fancy pants and are scared of hard physical work. A fresh pair of $60 Levi's 501, before it becomes faded and worn at the knees and hips, you can take your date to the Opera, and be looking mighty fine. Especially with that $200 pair of fancy boots.

Not so for women, since they come in all shapes and sizes. The fashion industry has to turn out a lot of variations so that every dame has one that allows her to cut a figure, and that keeps the prices up. But still, past $200, it's wretched excess, and screams to any one looking: "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! High-maintenance diva! Run away!"

We couldn't wear jeans to my high school, so I lived in narrow corduroys then and for years after. Seen one pair in my size (32x34) in the last 20 years. My one and only blue jeans since childhood was my last pair of 30 waist pants. One trip through the college laundry service (it had been an all-male school), and they were ball-busters.

The way to look at this "problem" is: the differences between the products you're looking at is either important or it isn't. If it is, be glad you've been given the choice and don't begrudge the effort of making it. If it isn't then, what the hell, pick whatever looks reasonable and don't worry about it.

Hey, tonight all you UW fans can forget about the idiots who've dominated your State for so long and concentrate your attention on the football team. I'm rooting for Russell Wilson and I've always liked UW, as far as Big Ten schools go. Maybe the athletes can help repair your image. Kickoff in 2 beers and counting...

1) Not unreasonable to wish to know what was "the original" and to be able to easily find it.

2) Scientific research from my EF class: Fishing lures do not work, statistically, because any one lure is so very like a fish, fly, etc. They work because for every type of lure, bait, food, litter, etc., in the water, there is more data for fish to process. IOW the more chum in the water the more likely that they'll bite at SOMETHING.

No fools, these marketers. At least till their unwieldy logistics eat them alive.